PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

G-1

APPENDIX G: TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC 

SAFETY REPORT
Port Bienville Railroad

Hancock and Pearl River Counties, Mississippi

Project Number FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

DRAFT TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY

REPORT

Prepared for:

Mississippi Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Prepared by:

 

November 2016
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

i Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

(This page intentionally left blank)
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

ii Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................1

1.1 Existing Port and Airport Facilities .................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Existing Rail Network............................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Existing Roadway Network ................................................................................................................. 6

1.4 Multimodal Corridors...........................................................................................................................14

1.5 Railroad Safety........................................................................................................................................14

Chapter 2. Future Conditions .................................................................................................................. 20

2.1 Port and Airport Facilities..................................................................................................................20

2.2 Future Rail Network .............................................................................................................................21

2.3 Future Roadway Network..................................................................................................................21

2.4 Proposed Project....................................................................................................................................22

2.5 Traffic Delay Analysis...........................................................................................................................30

Chapter 3. Project Commitments........................................................................................................... 38

References............................................................................................................................................................. 40

Figures

Figure 1: Port Bienville Industrial Park and Port Bienville Railroad..................................................................1

Figure 2: Regional Transportation Infrastructure......................................................................................................2

Figure 3: Existing Norfolk Southern Right of Way and Abandoned Railroad Track.....................................4

Figure 4: US Highway 11 At-Grade Crossing (view looking northbound).....................................................11

Figure 5: US Highway 11 At-Grade Crossing (view looking southbound).....................................................11

Figure 6: Texas Flat Road At-Grade Crossing (view looking westbound).....................................................11

Figure 7: Proposed Grade Crossings along Project Alignment...........................................................................24

Figure 8: Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossing Signage ................................................................................................27

Figure 9: Highway-Rail Crossing Signage and On-street Pavement Marking Example............................28

Tables

Table 1: Existing Roadway Functional Classification................................................................................................7

Table 2: Annual Average Daily Traffic (2008-2014)..................................................................................................8

Table 3: Annual Average Daily Traffic – Local Roadways........................................................................................9

Table 4: Truck Factors on Select Study Area Roadways ..........................................................................................9

Table 5: Existing Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossings along NS Rail Alignment.............................................10

Table 6. Annual Crash Summary (2010-2015).........................................................................................................12

Table 7. Location Crash Summary Relative to Proposed Project ......................................................................13
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

iii Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 8: Accident Data.........................................................................................................................................................19

Table 9: Proposed Grade Crossings along Project Alignment.............................................................................25

Table 10: Proposed Traffic Control Measures at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.......................................29

Table 11: Operational Parameters at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings .............................................................31

Table 12: Level of Service Criteria, Highway Capacity Manual ..........................................................................33

Table 13: Rural Street Level of Service Criteria, Highway Capacity Manual.................................................34

Table 14: Grade Crossing Projected Traffic Volume Data (2020 and 2040).................................................35

Table 15: Projected Rail Car Volumes with Dual Class I Rail Service ..............................................................36

Table 16: Distribution of Projected Daily Rail Car Volumes by Class I Railroad (one-way only)........37

Appendices

APPENDIX A – AT-GRADE CROSSING DELAY ANALYSIS RESULTS
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

iv Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAR Association of American Railroads

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADT average daily traffic 

CEA critical emphasis areas 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSXT CSX Transportation 

DOT Department of Transportation

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

HCM Highway Capacity Manual 

HCPHC Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission

KCS Kansas City Southern 

LOS Level of Service

MDA Mississippi Development Authority 

MDOT Mississippi Department of Transportation

MFN Mississippi Freight Network

MTIF Multimodal Transportation Improvement Fund 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NS Norfolk Southern

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PBVR Port Bienville Railroad

PTC Positive Train Control 

RSIA Rail Safety Improvement Act 

SSC Stennis Space Center

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

TIP Transportation Improvement Program 

TRB Transportation Research Board 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

1 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

CHAPTER 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS

This chapter discusses the affected environment associated with the proposed Project as it

relates to the existing transportation infrastructure including port and airport facilities, 

railroads, and roadway network. Gulf Coast region transportation facilities are also 

described.

1.1 EXISTING PORT AND AIRPORT FACILITIES

1.1.1 Port Bienville/Port Bienville Industrial Park

Port Bienville is owned and operated by the Hancock County Port and Harbor Development 

Commission. Port Bienville is a multi-modal, shallow draft barge port with a 12-foot 

channel located off the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near mile marker 24 on Mulatto Bayou 

in Hancock County (Figure 1). Port Bienville is a container, bulk and break-bulk seaport 

with trans-load capabilities. Existing port infrastructure within Port Bienville includes 600 

feet of dock space, three primary berths, and an additional 300-foot berth and turning 

basin. The Port is located on the south 

end of the study area, with primary 

highway access provided by way of 

Interstate 10 (I-10), I-59 and 

US Highway 90 (US 90). 

Port Bienville is also home to the Port 

Bienville Industrial Park which 

encompasses approximately 3,600 acres. 

Gulf Coast Foreign Trade Zone #92 is 

located within the industrial park. 

Currently, 13 tenants are located within 

the industrial park, with a workforce of 

approximately 1,200 employees. 

Approximately 1,220 acres of portowned property on 17 sites is currently 

available for lease at the Port (HCPHC 

2016a). In addition to port-owned 

property, five parcels of land are 

privately owned within the industrial 

park. 

In 2001, the Multimodal Transportation 

Improvement Program was established 

by the Mississippi Legislature which created a special fund, known as the Multimodal 

Figure 1: Port Bienville Industrial Park and Port 

Bienville Railroad

Source: MDOT Website (MDOT 2016a)
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

2 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 2: Regional Transportation Infrastructure

Transportation Improvement Fund (MTIF) (MDOT 2013a). The MTIF allows the Mississippi 

Department of Transportation (MDOT) to appropriate funds for multimodal capital 

improvement projects at ports, airports, railroads, and public transit systems throughout 

the State. Annual funding for the program is currently $10 million. MDOT’s Multimodal 

Transportation Improvement Program plays a key role in keeping Mississippi’s nonhighway transportation infrastructure maintained and in a state of good repair. Funds for 

the program have also contributed to significant upgrades and improvements to the 

intermodal system through advancements and expansions that otherwise would not have 

been completed, thus keeping the state competitive in goods movement nationally and 

internationally. In 2013, the distribution of multimodal funding for each mode of 

transportation consisted of: ports (38%), rail (12%), public transit (16%), and airports 

(34%) (MDOT 2011a).

According to the Multimodal Investment Report (MDOT 2013a), ports have experienced an 

increase in rail infrastructure projects allowing them to better handle and move freight, 

which in turn makes ports safer, 

improves the flow of goods, and 

provides faster service. These 

benefits have positioned ports to 

remain more competitive in the 

goods movement industry. In 

2013, Port Bienville was the 

recipient of a port multimodal

grant in the amount of $275,000 

for repairs and upgrades to an 

internal roadway, and for preconstruction survey work for 

future Port expansion projects. In 

August 2016, Port Bienville 

Industrial Park was awarded a 

$375,500 grant for the 

construction of bulkhead and 

dolphin upgrades to support 

tenant product movements (HCPHC 2016b).

Port Bienville is one of three ports serving Mississippi’s Gulf Coast. Two deep draft ports

also serve the Gulf Coast including the Port of Gulfport in Gulfport, Mississippi and the Port 

of Pascagoula in Pascagoula, Mississippi (Figure 2).

1.1.2 Stennis International Airport

Stennis International Airport, also owned by the Hancock County Port and Harbor 

Commission (HCPHC), is located on the eastern perimeter of the study area in Kiln, 

Source: HCPHC Website (HCPHC 2016c)
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

3 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Mississippi. The airport is a general aviation airport with a 5,500-foot runway. Stennis

recorded a total of 29,010 takeoffs and landings in fiscal year 2015, up from 22,008 the 

previous year (HCPHC 2015).

The first phase of a Terminal Hangar project opened at the airport in 2014 which included 

the expansion of an existing tenants operation to accommodate maintenance, repair and 

overhaul operations, in addition to an increase of rentable tenant space including a café. 

Apron and parking facilities were also constructed (HCPHC 2015). Other recent landside 

and airside construction projects at the airport include: expansion of an apron at the 

northern area, rehabilitation of an existing apron, new taxiways makings and airport 

perimeter fencing. The Stennis Airport property also includes a business park. 

In 2013, Stennis Airport was awarded an MDOT Airport multimodal grant in the amount of 

$23,750 for matching funds for the construction of an apron expansion project (MDOT 

2011a). In August 2016, the same multimodal grant funding source provided 

approximately $252,500 to Stennis Airport for a parking/containment area for fuel trucks 

and ground support equipment (HCPHC 2016b).

1.2 EXISTING RAIL NETWORK

1.2.1 CSX Transportation

CSX Transportation (CSXT), a subsidiary of CSX Corporation, is one of seven Class 1 

railroads serving the United States rail and intermodal markets. The CSXT rail network 

encompasses 21,000 route miles of tract in 23 states and the District of Columbia (CSX 

2016a), which are primarily located in the eastern U.S., specifically east of the Mississippi 

River. 

CSXT’s NO&M Subdivision is located between New Orleans and Mobile and is 

approximately 138.5 miles. Within Mississippi, the single-track mainline extends 74 miles 

between the Louisiana border and Alabama border. Within Mississippi CSXT owns 74 miles 

of track, with another 20 miles operated via trackage rights (MDOT 2011a). 

Currently, the CSXT mainline carries an average of 18 to 19 freight trains daily (MDOT 

2011b)1, in addition to serving local in-line industries. This daily train volume is consistent 

with prior train activity reported within the Statewide Freight Plan. Train speeds along the 

CSXT corridor vary from Class 3 freight train speeds of less than 39 miles per hour (mph) 

on some short segments to Class 4 freight train speeds of up to 60 mph (MDOT 2015a). 

There are 72 public highway-rail at-grade crossings along the CSXT mainline; 35 of these 

crossings do not have Active 2 warning devices (see section 2.4.3 regarding at-grade 

crossing traffic control devices).

 

1

Larry Ratcliffe (CSX), phone call with Kevin Keller (HDR), November 16, 2016.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

4 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 3: Existing Norfolk Southern Right of Way 

and Abandoned Railroad Track 

Existing freight rail service to Port Bienville and the industrial park is provided by CSXT. 

The Port Bienville Railroad connects to CSXT’s mainline approximately 5 miles east of the 

Port near Ansley, Mississippi. The Port of Gulfport and the Port of Pascagoula are also 

served by CSXT. In 2011, annual freight flow on the CSXT was 16.4 million tons, with an 

estimated value of $27.6 billion. By 2040, annual freight flow is projected to be 24.1 million 

tons, with an estimated value of $50.7 billion (MDOT 2015a). 

1.2.2 Norfolk Southern Railway Company

Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) operates 20,000 route miles in 22 states and the 

District of Columbia (NS 2016), which are primarily located in the eastern U.S. with 

principal gateways at Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Memphis and New Orleans. Within 

Mississippi, the NS operates 211 route miles which includes ownership of 209 route miles 

and trackage rights over 2 route miles over two principal routes (MDOT 2011a).

The NS mainline route bisects a small portion of the study area in Nicholson and generally 

parallels US Highway 11 northward to Picayune. The NS rail line continues farther north to 

Hattiesburg and Meridian; generally parallel to I-59.

Currently, the NS mainline carries an average of 22 trains a day through Nicholson, and 

averages about 115 trains per week2. Train speeds along the NS corridor generally allow 

freight speeds of up to 60 mph. There are 30 public highway-rail at-grade crossing along 

the NS mainline; 7 of these crossings do not have Active 2 warning devices (MDOT 2015a).

Passenger rail service is provided on the NS mainline; Amtrak currently operates daily 

service between New Orleans and New 

York.

In 2011, annual freight flow on the NS was 

28.8 million tons, with an estimated value 

of $36.4 billion. By 2040, annual freight 

flow is projected to be 41.8 million tons, 

with an estimated value of $64.5 billion 

(MDOT 2015a). 

Rail service to Stennis Space Center (SSC) 

was previously provided by way of a 

former rail spur that connects to the NS 

lead track in Nicholson, just east of US 

Highway 11. The right of way and track

associated with the former rail line is 

owned by NS (Figure 3). The existing rail 

 

2

Alan Sisk (NS), email to Kevin Keller (HDR), October 20, 2016.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

5 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

right of way varies in width but is generally 200 feet wide. Rail service to SSC ceased over 

10 years ago; subsequently, maintenance of the existing track has not been undertaken. 

1.2.3 Port Bienville Railroad

The Port Bienville Railroad (PBVR) is a Class III, short line railroad that provides rail service 

to several businesses within the Port Bienville Industrial Park and connects these rail users

to CSXT’s east‐west mainline along the Gulf Coast. From Port Bienville, the PBVR extends 

east approximately 5 miles to Ansley, Mississippi and connects to CXST’s mainline. Total 

mileage owned and operated by PBVR is 9 miles (MDOT 2011a). Similar to Class 1 

railroads, the single-tract PBVR has the ability to transport 286,000 pound carloads. 

The PBVR currently operates 6-day service with 2 trains per day (1 train inbound and 1 

train outbound). Each train averages 22 cars per train each way. This daily average is based 

on the actual number of total cars serviced (49,013 cars) from January 2013 to present. 

Annually, PBVR handles approximately 6,200 train cars. PBVR train speeds are generally 

20 to 30 mph. There are 2 public highway-rail at-grade crossing along the PBVR; each 

crossing Lower Bay Road with the eastern crossing located at the Port entrance. Active 

warning devices were recently install at this grade crossing. 

The PBVR maintenance yard is located immediately east of Lower Bay Road, and includes a 

3,000 foot siding and six storage tracks of varying length, ranging from approximately 

2,000 feet to 3,000 feet. Storage capacity is estimated at 429 cars (MDOT 2011a). The Port 

Bienville Railroad serves the diverse manufacturing and technology industries located 

within the Port and industrial park.

As part of MDOT’s Multimodal Transportation Improvement Program, in 2013 Port 

Bienville Railroad was awarded a Rail multimodal grant in the amount of $260,000 for rail 

improvements to a dry bulk terminal. In August 2016, PBVR was the recipient of a 

$398,000 grant for the construction of a 1,270-foot rail spur (HCPHC 2016b). Other recent 

PBVR construction projects include expansion of the rail car wash and adjacent rail line, 

storm drainage improvements consisting of the replacement of culverts, and the 

installation of lights and gates at two at-grade rail crossings on Lower Bay Road.

1.2.4 Passenger Rail

Amtrak, also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, currently operates 

intercity passenger rail service within Mississippi. Daily passenger rail service between 

New Orleans and Chicago is provided along Kansas City Southern (KCS) track which passes 

through Meridian. Passenger rail service is also provided between New Orleans and New 

York via the Crescent. The Crescent route runs along NS mainline track within the study 

area.

Prior to Hurricane Katrina (August 2005), Amtrak operated intercity passenger rail service 

between New Orleans and Florida via the Sunset Limited. The route followed CSXT’s single-
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

6 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

track mainline through Mississippi. Since then, Amtrak has completed several studies 

(including ridership projections, revenue forecasts and infrastructure improvements) to 

explore options to resume passenger rail service.

The restoration of passenger rail service along the Gulf Coast is a key initiative among 

several states including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. On February 18, 

2016, representatives from the FRA, Amtrak, state Departments of Transportation, elected 

officials, and the Southern Rail Commission embarked on a two-day Gulf Coast Passenger 

Rail Train Trip—the first passenger rail service since 2005 (Southern Rail Commission 

2016). Starting at the Union Passenger Terminal in New Orleans and terminating in 

Jacksonville, Florida, thousands of enthusiastic residents and community groups greeted 

the train at each of the 14 stations along its journey, further demonstrating support for 

passenger rail service for both mobility and economic reasons. Indications are that 

passenger rail service may be viable if CSXT’s mainline route is double-tracked in the 

future.

CSXT’s route through Mississippi also comprises a portion of the Gulf Coast Corridor that 

was federally designated as a high-speed rail corridor in 1998 and further extended in 

2000. Between Houston and Atlanta, total mileage for this designated corridor is 1,025 

miles. High-speed (110 miles per hour service) passenger rail service would only be viable 

if CSXT’s mainline route is double-tracked in the future.

1.3 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

1.3.1 Study Area Roadway Network

The study area encompasses a portion of Hancock and Pearl River Counties and is generally 

bounded by Nicholson and Kiln to the north, Port Bienville to the south, the Pearl River to

the west and Stennis International Airport and SR 603/SR 43 to the east. The study area 

roadways are comprised of a mix of roadway types ranging from interstate highways to 

local roadways. The study area is bisected by Interstate 10, while Interstate 59 passes

through a small portion of the northern portion of the study area in Pearl River County.

Interstate 59 (I-59) and Interstate 10 (I-10) are both 4-lane divided facilities and are 

classified as interstate highways (Table 1). 

US Highway 11 (US 11) is located in the northern portion of the study area within 

Nicholson. US 11 is a 2-lane roadway west of I-59 and is classified as a minor arterial. US 11 

ends on the west side of I-59 and becomes State Route 607 (SR 607) on the east side of I59. Within Nicholson and extending north to Picayune, US 11 parallels the NS Railroad. 

North of Picayune, the NS Railroad and US 11 corridors diverge. 

US Highway 90 (US 90) is located in the southern portion of the study area in Pearlington 

and extends northeast to SR 607. Within these limits, US 90 is classified as a principal 

arterial north of I-10 and is classified as a major collectors north of I-10.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

7 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

From I-59 southward to I-10, SR 607 is classified as a major collector. South of I-10, SR 607 

is classified as a principal arterial. The portion of SR 607 that traverses through SSC is 

known as Shuttle Parkway. Table 1 summarizes the hierarchy of study area roadways and 

their existing roadway typical sections.

Table 1: Existing Roadway Functional Classification

Route Functional 

Classification Limits Roadway Typical Section

Interstate 59 Interstate Highway Throughout Pearl River County 4-lane divided with 

shoulders

Interstate 10 Interstate Highway Throughout Hancock County 4-lane divided with 

shoulders

US Highway 11 Minor Arterial SR 43 to SR 607/I-59 2-lane

SR 607 Major Collector I-59 to Texas Flat Road 2-lane with narrow 

shoulders

SR 607 /

Shuttle Parkway

Major Collector Texas Flat Road to I-10 4-lane divided, no 

shoulders

SR 607 Principal Arterial I-10 to US 90 4-lane divided with 

narrow shoulders

US Highway 90 Minor Arterial LA/MS state line to Lower Bay 

Road 2-lane with shoulders

US Highway 90 Principal Arterial Lower Bay Road to SR 607/US 90 2-lane with shoulders

US Highway 90 Principal Arterial SR 607 to Rifle Range Road 4-lane divided with 

shoulders

Texas Flat Road Major Collector SR 607 to SR 603 2-lane unimproved

Flat Top Road Rural Minor Collector SSC to Old Kiln Road 2-lane unimproved

Lower Bay Road Local Roadway US 90 to SR 603 2-lane

Old Lower Bay Road Local Roadway Lower Bay Road to SR 603 2-lane

Port and Harbor Drive Local Roadway Internal Port Road west of Lower 

Bay Road 2-lane

Sources: 

Functional Classification System map, Pearl River County, MS, MDOT Planning Division, 2015 (MDOT 2015b).

Functional Classification System map, Hancock County, MS, MDOT Planning Division, 2014 (MDOT 2014a).

Functional Classification System map, Picayune Urban Area, Pearl River County, MS, MDOT Planning Division, 2013

(MDOT 2013b).
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

8 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

1.3.2 Traffic Data

Traffic Volume Data

Existing traffic conditions associated with the study area roadways were obtained from 

MDOT. These data were reviewed to determine the overall volume of traffic on the study 

area roadway network. Due to the rural nature of the study area, the majority of study area 

roadways can generally be considered low-volume roadways as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Annual Average Daily Traffic (2008-2014)

Traffic 

Count 

Station

Site ID

Street - Limits 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

230039 Interstate 10 – MS/LA State 

line to SR 607 38,000 38,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000

230040 Interstate 10 - SR 607 to 

Gulfport 34,000 35,000 34,000 34,000 35,000 35,000 36,000

550020 US 11 - Shorty Burgess Road 

to I-59 7,400 7,300 7,400 7,200 7,200 7,200 8,400

230030 US 90/Chef Menteur Highway 

- SR 607 to Lower Bay Road 4,100 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,600 2,600 2,600

230020 US 90/Chef Menteur Highway 

- SR 604 to MS/LA State line 3,100 3,000 4,100 4,000 4,000 3,000 4,100

550010 SR 607 – Interstate 59 to Asa 

McQueen Road 3,200 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,900 5,900 6,000

230010 SR 607 - Asa McQueen Road to 

Texas Flat Road 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 5,100 5,100 5,200

230151 SR 607 - Texas Flat Road to 

Kellar Road 3,600 3,600 3,100 3,000 3,000 3,400 3,400

230148 SR 607 - Interstate 10 to 

US 90/Chef Menteur Highway 4,600 8,200 8,400 8,400 6,700 6,700 6,900

Source: MDOT, Planning Division, MDOT Count Station Data, http://mdot.ms.gov/applications/trafficcounters

Notes: 

1. Traffic counts shown are Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) which are computed from adjustment factors. 

2. AADT counts shown in Black Text indicate that the count was not counted in the selected year and the AADT was 

estimated using factors for day-of-week, season, and average percent trucks.

3. AADT counts shown in Red Text indicate that the count was counted in the selected year and the AADT is based on that 

count.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

9 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Supplemental traffic data were obtained from the Gulf Regional Planning Commission for 

additional study area roadways that are not included in MDOT’s traffic count program 

(Table 3). The data continues to reflect the low-volume of daily traffic on key study area 

roadways. 

Table 3: Annual Average Daily Traffic – Local Roadways

Street - Location and/or Limits Volume Year of Count

Flat Top Road - North of Texas Flat Road 110 2011

Texas Flat Road - Catahoula Road to Crown Road 2,064 2012

Lower Bay Road - East of US 90/Chef Menteur Highway 1,684 2013

Lower Bay Road - South of Port and Harbor Drive 1,876 2012

Port and Harbor Drive - West of Lower Bay Road 2,135 2012

Source: Gulf Regional Planning Commission; http://mdot.ms.gov/applications/trafficcounters

Vehicle Classification / Percent of Heavy Vehicles

In addition to volume data, traffic count data and other planning documents were reviewed 

to determine the overall vehicle composition of traffic on study area roadways. Of 

particular interest was the volume of truck traffic compared to the overall volume of traffic 

which is depicted by the percentage of truck traffic (T). Truck factors are derived from 

vehicle classification counts. The percentage of truck traffic compared to overall traffic for 

various study area roadways are listed in Table 4. 

Table 4: Truck Factors on Select Study Area Roadways

Location / Limits T Factor (source)

Interstate 59 16% (3)

Interstate 10 14% (3)

US 11 – south of Orvisburg Road 14% (2)

SR 607 - north of Interstate 10 5% (1)

SR 607 - south of Interstate 10 9% (1); 8% (2)

US 90 - SR 607 to Old Bay Road 14% (1)

Flat Top Road - North of Texas Flat Road 9% (1)

Texas Flat Road 9% (1)

Source 1. Truck factor derived from traffic count data; count date varies 

Source 2. Truck factor derived from Mississippi Public Roads, Selected Statistics Extent, Travel and Designation

(MDOT 2014b)

Source 3. Truck factor derived from Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan based on 2011 data (MDOT 2015a)
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

10 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

1.3.3 Existing Highway-Railroad At-Grade Crossings

The information described below is extracted from FRA’s website under their “Rail Safety” 

page (FRA 2016a) and “Grade Crossings” page (FRA 2016b).

Highway-railroad grade crossings are intersections where a highway crosses a railroad atgrade. To avoid collisions, warning/control devices are required at grade crossings just like 

intersecting roads need stop signs or traffic signals. Active Grade Crossings have active 

warning and control devices such as bells, flashing lights, and gates, in addition to passive 

warning devices such as crossbucks (the familiar x-shaped signs that mean yield to the 

train), yield or stop signs and pavement markings. Passive Grade Crossings have only 

passive warning devices. These warning/control devices are specified in the Manual of 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); (also see Section 2.4.3 - Proposed Traffic Control 

Measures at Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossings for further discussion).

Grade crossings may be public or private. Public grade crossings are roadways that are 

under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority. Private grade crossings are

on privately owned roadways, such as on a farm or industrial area, and are intended for use 

by the owner or by the owner's licensees and invitees. A private crossing is not intended 

for public use and is not maintained by a public highway authority. 

Table 5 provides a summary of the existing highway-rail at-grade crossings that are 

located in the northern portion of the study area along the existing NS right of way (ROW). 

Table 5: Existing Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossings along NS Rail Alignment

Roadway Crossing 

Location

NS Alignment 

Approximate 

Centerline 

Station (1)

Crossing Type and Disposition

At-Grade GradeSeparated; 

Public Crossing Public Private

US Highway 11 Sta 7+91 Existing - -

Interstate 59 Sta 38+30 - - Existing; Rail over

Asa McQueen Road Sta 84+93 Existing - -

Unknown Roadway Sta 128+80 Existing - -

Unknown Roadway Sta 155+29 Existing - -

Ridge Road Sta 199+45 Existing - -

Texas Flat Road Sta 229+74 Existing - -

Source 1: HDR Engineering, Inc. Conceptual Engineering Map Set
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

11 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 4 and Figure 5 depict the northbound and southbound approaches to the existing 

at-grade crossing at US Highway 11, respectively, while Figure 6 depicts the existing atgrade crossing at Texas Flat Road. 

Figure 5: US Highway 11 At-Grade Crossing (view looking southbound)

Figure 4: US Highway 11 At-Grade Crossing (view 

looking northbound)

Figure 6: Texas Flat Road At-Grade Crossing (view 

looking westbound)
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

12 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

1.3.4 Existing Highway-Railroad At-Grade Crossings

Crash Data Overview – Number of Incidents by Year

The most recent years of crash data for study area roadways were obtained from MDOT. 

These data were reviewed to determine the overall location of crashes in relationship to 

the proposed Project alignment. Table 6 simply presents an overall summary of the 

number of crashes that occurred between 2010 and 2015. 

Table 6. Annual Crash Summary (2010-2015)

Crash Location

Street - Limits

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

US 11 - Shorty Burgess Road to I-59 5 9 7 8 8 11 (1) 48

US 90 - SR 607 to Lower Bay Road 6 1 6 9 1 7 30

SR 607 – I-59 to Asa McQueen Road 4 2 6 7 2 7 28

SR 607 - Asa McQueen Road to Texas 

Flat Road 3 4 1 2 1 4 15

SR 607 - Texas Flat Road to Kellar 

Road 1 3 1 1 2 6 14

SR 607 – I-10 to US 90 13 14 11 15 17 21 91

Texas Flat Road – SR 607 to SR 603 7 7 10 6 7 9 46

Lower Bay Road – US 90 to Old 

Lower Bay Road 2 1 - - 1 1 5

Source: MDOT, Planning Division, District 6 Crash Data, XL GL and MUCR GL Reports (January 2010 – December 2015) for 

Locations Shown.

Note 1: one crash eliminated from the data set as it occurred on Interstate 59. 

Crash Data Summary Relative to Proposed Project Alignment

Crash locations within immediate proximity to, or crossing the proposed Project alignment 

were evaluated. Further review of this crash data was undertaken to determine the 

location and number of crashes on US 11 north of I-59 and on Texas Flat Road east of 

SR 607 as they relate to the project alignment. Table 7 summarizes crash data key features 

for these specific locations.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

13 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 7. Location Crash Summary Relative to Proposed Project

Crash Location

Street - Limits

Total 

Crashes 

(2010 –

2015)

Crash Data Key Features

US 11 - Shorty Burgess 

Road to I-59 48

• The proposed project would cross US 11 generally between 

Shorty Burgess Road and Jackson Landing Road. 

• One crash occurred on US 11 at the abandoned NS tracks.

• Eleven crashes took place on US 11 between Nicholson 

Elementary School just north of Shorty Burgess Road, 

southward to River Road. Although it is not identified as a 

contributing factor, the roadway geometry in this portion of US 

11 includes a horizontal curve that could potentially affect 

driver sight distance.

• One of the eleven crashes noted above took place in front of 

Nicholson Elementary School in March 2011 at 3 A.M. and 

involved an intoxicated driver running off the road. 

• The need for a School Zone pedestrian crossing should be 

considered as part of project design. 

• Ten of the 49 crashes took place at the I-59 interchange; 

although not within proximity to the proposed project. Twenty 

(20) additional crashes occurred at the interchange and were 

recorded in crash date for SR 607 - I-59 to Asa McQueen Road.

Texas Flat Road –

SR 607 to SR 603 46

• The proposed project would cross Texas Flat Road just east of 

SR 607. The proposed project would then run parallel to, and 

south of Texas Flat Road for approximately 7.5 miles. 

• Eight out of 46 crashes occurred near, or at the intersection of 

SR 607 and Texas Flat Road. The proposed project crosses 

Texas Flat Road just east of SR 607. 

• An additional 8 out of 46 crashes occurred on Texas Flat Road 

at Flat Top Road, Mainline Road or Bombing Range Road. The 

proposed project parallels Texas Flat Road to the south of these 

locations. 

• Although not within proximity to the proposed project; almost 

half of the crashes (24) within theses limits took place on the 

east side of Texas Flat Road at SR 603/MS 43. 

Source: Review of MDOT, Planning Division, District 6 Crash Data, XL GL and MUCR GL Reports (January 2010 – December 

2015) for Locations Shown 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

14 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

1.4 MULTIMODAL CORRIDORS

A key element of the Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan was the identification of primary 

freight corridors in the state. Several multimodal freight corridors comprise the Mississippi 

Freight Network (MFN). The MFN is intended to define these critical corridors and is 

comprised of primary multimodal freight corridors, major intermodal facilities (marine 

ports, river ports, and commercial airports) served by these corridors, and the connecting 

roadway and rail links serving those intermodal facilities and the state’s major freight 

generators. Included among those are Tier I Corridors which include the I-10/CSXT (Gulf 

Coast) Corridor and the I-59/NS Corridor. Both of these Tier I Corridors is aligned to a 

major interstate and Class 1 railroad main line. Each corridor features a combination of 

intermodal facilities (ports, airport, or rail) that are served by both a highway and rail 

connector. 

1.5 RAILROAD SAFETY

FRA’s Office of Railroad Safety promotes and regulates safety throughout the Nation’s 

railroad industry through a diverse staff of railroad safety experts. Five of the safety 

disciplines focus on compliance and enforcement in: hazardous materials; motive power 

and equipment; operating practices; signal and train control; and track (FRA 2016a).

1.5.1 Railroad Safety Laws, Regulations and Programs

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

In response to several fatal rail accidents that occurred between 2002 and 2008, Congress 

passed the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) of 2008, the first authorization of FRA’s 

safety programs since 1994 (Public Law No. 110-432, Division A, enacted October 16, 2008, 

122 Statute 4848-4906) (FRA 2009). The RSIA directs FRA to, among other things, 

promulgate new safety regulations. These new regulations govern different areas related 

to railroad safety, such as hours of service requirements for railroad workers, positive train 

control implementation, standards for track inspections, certification of locomotive 

conductors, and safety at highway-rail grade crossings.

Section 130

Section 130 refers to the Federal Aid Crossing Improvement Program; Section 130, Title 23 

U.S. Code, Highway-Rail. This program requires each state to conduct and systematically 

maintain a survey of all public crossings, identifying those needing attention and provides 

funds for highway-rail grade crossing safety improvements. The improvements could be 

for separation, relocation, warnings signs and devices, and surfaces. Section 130 also 

requires that each state establish and implement a schedule of projects for this purpose, 

minimally requiring it to provide signs for all highway-rail grade crossings. 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

15 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Accident Data and Reporting Investigations

To keep the railroads safe, FRA collects and analyzes data from the railroads and converts 

this information into meaningful statistical tables, charts, and reports. In addition to 

Railroad reported accidents and incidents, FRA continuously monitors the occurrence of 

train accidents and incidents and investigates serious events to determine their cause and 

compliance with existing safety laws and regulations. These activities are implemented 

under CFR Title 49 Part 225 – Railroad Accidents/Incidents: Reports Classification and 

Investigations.

The purpose of Part 225 is to provide the Federal Railroad Administration with accurate 

information concerning the hazards and risks that exist on the Nation's railroads. FRA 

needs this information to effectively carry out its regulatory responsibilities under 49 U.S.

Code chapters 201-213. FRA also uses this information for determining comparative trends 

of railroad safety and to develop hazard elimination and risk reduction programs that focus 

on preventing railroad injuries and accidents. Any State may require railroads to submit to 

it copies of accident/ incident and injury/illness reports filed with FRA under this part, for 

accidents/incidents and injuries/illnesses which occur in that State.

Railroad Bridge Safety Standards

The structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks is important to the safety of 

railroad employees and to the public. The responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges 

rests with the owner of the track carried by the bridge, together with any other party to 

whom that responsibility has been assigned by the track owner. The severity of a train 

accident is usually compounded when a bridge is involved, regardless of the cause of the 

accident. 

Under 49 CFR Parts 213 and 237, FRA has established Federal safety requirements for 

railroad bridges (FRA 2010). This final rule requires track owners to implement bridge 

management programs, which include annual inspections of railroad bridges, and to audit 

the programs. This final rule also requires track owners to know the safe load capacity of 

bridges and to conduct special inspections if the weather or other conditions warrant such 

inspections. 

Positive Train Control

Positive Train Control (PTC) systems are integrated command, control, communications, 

and information systems designed to prevent train accidents by controlling train 

movements with safety, security, precision, and efficiency. PTC systems will improve 

railroad safety by significantly reducing the probability of collisions between trains, 

casualties to roadway workers and damage to their equipment, and over speed accidents. 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has named PTC as one of its "mostwanted" initiatives for national transportation safety. 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

16 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

In 2008, Congress required Class I Railroad mainlines handling poisonous-inhalationhazard materials and any railroad main lines with regularly scheduled intercity and 

commuter rail passenger service to fully implement PTC by December 31, 2015. In late 

2015, Congress extended the deadline by at least three years to December 31, 2018, with 

the possibility for two additional years if certain requirements are met. The new legislation, 

the PTC Enforcement and Implementation Act, required that railroads submit a revised 

PTC Implementation Plan by January 26, 2016, outlining when and how the railroad would 

have a system fully installed and activated.

PTC may be voluntarily developed and implemented by a railroad following the 

requirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 236, Subpart H – Standards for 

Processor-Based Signal and Train Control Systems ; or, may be as mandated by the Rail 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 developed and implemented by a railroad following the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 236, Subpart I – Positive Train Control Systems (FRA 2016c).

AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

published a nationally focused Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) in 1997, which was 

updated in 2004. This national SHSP focused on 22 specific highway safety challenges, or 

emphasis areas, that are divided into the following six parts or categories (MDOT 2014c):

• Part 1: Drivers

• Part 2: Special Users

• Part 3: Vehicles

• Part 4: Highways

• Part 5: Emergency Services

• Part 6: Management

Within the Part 4 Highways category, one of the AASHTO’s critical emphasis areas is 

reducing vehicle-train collisions. 

Mississippi Strategic Highway Safety Plan

Mississippi’s initial Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) set a goal of reducing trafficrelated fatalities to 700 traffic fatalities by 2011. At the time, this was considered a stretch 

goal because during the prior study period (2000 to 2007), Mississippi averaged almost 

900 traffic fatalities per year and the trend line was flat. The 2013 SHSP builds on the 

original SHSP that was completed by MDOT and Mississippi Department of Public Safety in 

2007. The new goal includes reducing annual traffic fatalities by 25 percent by 2017; this 

translates into 525 or fewer traffic fatalities by 2017 (MDOT 2014c). 

As part of the 2013 SHSP update, Mississippi’s crash data for severe crashes that occurred 

between 2005 and 2009 was analyzed and then disaggregated into AASHTO’s critical

emphasis areas (CEA). The analysis identified the number of severe crashes in each CEA, 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

17 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

along with the percentage represented of the total number of crashes. It was concluded 

that a focus on the top CEA’s represent the greatest potential to significantly reduce the 

number of severe crashes throughout Mississippi. The top CEAs are listed as follows

(MDOT 2014c):

• Unbelted Drivers 

• Intersection Crashes

• Impaired Drivers

• Unlicensed Drivers

• Road Departure Crashes

Accident data for vehicle-train collisions was also evaluated as part of the 2013 SHSP 

update. Within the Part 4 Highways category, one of the AASHTO’s critical emphasis areas 

is reducing vehicle-train collisions.

Rail Safety Public Awareness Programs

Operation Lifesaver, Inc. is just one of many organizations dedicated to advocating rail 

safety and educating the public on rail safety programs. They are a nonprofit public safety 

organization committed to reducing collisions, fatalities and injuries at highway-rail 

crossings and trespassing on or near railroad tracks. Throughout the United States, they 

work with rail safety advocates, and local and state governments to educate people about 

rail safety and develop educational materials and create public awareness campaigns (OLI 

2016).

1.5.2 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety

The rail safety area most visible to the general public, and for which the public is most 

exposed to potential harm from rail operations, is the interface between the rail and 

highway systems at grade crossings. There are over 4,200 highway-rail crossings in 

Mississippi, with almost 2,300 located on public roadways. Over the past decade, MDOT has 

completed improvements to over 400 at-grade crossing locations (MDOT 2011a).

1.5.3 Hazardous Materials

The following information is excerpted from FRA website, Hazardous Material Transport 

(FRA 2016d) and CSX website under safety/hazardous materials (CSX 2016b).

Rail transportation of hazardous materials in the United States is recognized to be the 

safest method of moving large quantities of chemicals over long distances. Recent statistics 

show that the rail industry’s safety performance, as a whole, is improving. In particular, the 

vast majority of hazardous materials shipped by rail tank car every year arrive safely and 

without incident, and railroads generally have an outstanding record in moving shipments 

of hazardous materials safely. 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

18 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Freight railroads have established recommended operating practices for the transportation 

of hazardous materials pursuant to Association of American Railroads (AAR) Recommended 

Railroad Operating Practices for Transportation of Hazardous Materials, Circular No. OT-55-

I (CPC-1174, Supplement No. 1) (AAR 2006). Continuous sponsored industry and 

government improvements in rail equipment, tank car and container design and 

construction, and inspection and maintenance methods have resulted in reducing 

derailments, spills, leaks and casualties while the volume of traffic increases (FRA 2016d). 

Railroads that transport hazardous materials have highly trained experts that manage 

hazardous material movements and respond to hazardous material incidents. The

transport of hazardous materials is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Transportation Security 

Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). These regulations mandate that the transport of 

hazardous materials be conducted with the highest level of care and security. 

Freight railroads are considered “common carriers” under U.S. interstate commerce laws 

and are legally required to move any freight including hazardous materials, provided that 

they are contained within a government approved rail car or container. Rail cars that 

transport hazardous materials must meet strict Federal regulations. 

The majority of hazardous materials are chemicals that are essential to the economy of the 

U.S. and are used to manufacture every day products. Hazardous commodities, by U.S. DOT

hazard class, are listed below. 

• Class 1 – Explosives

• Class 2 – Gases

• Class 3 – Flammable Liquids

• Class 4 – Other Flammable Substances

• Class 5 – Oxidizing Substances and Organic Peroxides

• Class 6 – Toxic (Poisonous) and Infectious Substances

• Class 7 – Radioactive Material

• Class 8 – Corrosives

• Class 9 – Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials

1.5.4 Emergency Response

USEPA regulations address spill prevention and cleanup. Most USEPA regulations address 

fixed facilities rather than transport activities. However, USEPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 

263, are applicable to transporters of hazardous waste, and specify immediate response 

actions, discharge cleanup, and other requirements for transporters of hazardous waste. 

Finally, OSHA regulations in 29 CFR § 1910.120, address hazardous waste operations and 

emergency response, and specify emergency response and cleanup operations for releases 

of hazardous substances and substantial threats of such releases.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

19 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

1.5.5 FRA Accident Data

Accident data for Hancock County and Pearl River County were obtained from FRA’s Office 

of Safety Analysis. Table 8 presents 20 years of accident data (1996-2015) for each of the 

railroads that operate within the study area. 

According to the Highway Rail Incident records, PBVR had 2 rail incidents over the past 

20-year period.

Table 8: Accident Data

Year

Hancock County Pearl River County

Port 

Bienville CSXT Amtrak Total NS Amtrak Total

2015 - 1 - 1 - - 0

2014 - 1 - 1 - - 0

2013 - 1 - 1 - - 0

2012 - 2 - 2 - - 0

2011 1 2 - 3 - - 0

2010 - 1 - 1 1 - 1

2009 - 1 - 1 - 1 1

2008 - 1 - 1 3 - 3

2007 - 3 - 3 - - 0

2006 - 3 - 3 3 - 3

2005 - - - - - - 0

2004 - 1 - 1 - - 0

2003 - 1 1 2 - - 0

2002 - 2 - 2 1 1 2

2001 - - - 0 1 1 2

2000 - 1 1 2 1 - 1

1999 - - - - - 3 3

1998 1 1 - 2 1 1 2

1997 2 1 3 1 1 2

1996 1 1 2 - - 0

20-year Total 2 25 4 31 12 8 20

Source: FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis (FRA 2016e)

Note: Highway Rail Incidents Only; Severity of Incidents not included
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

20 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

CHAPTER 2. FUTURE CONDITIONS

This chapter discusses the proposed Project as it relates to future year transportation 

infrastructure including port and airport facilities, railroads, and roadway network. A 

summary of projected future year traffic conditions, operations, and safety within the study 

area is presented. Future year traffic operations consists of a traffic and grade crossing 

analysis which focuses on future year train volumes and associated highway traffic impacts 

that are projected as part of the proposed Project.

2.1 PORT AND AIRPORT FACILITIES

2.1.1 Port Bienville/Port Bienville Industrial Park

Major development initiatives have recently been undertaken or are proposed at Port 

Bienville Industrial Park. These projects, which would benefit from the expansion of 

regional transportation facilities within the study area, are briefly described below (HCPHC 

2015).

Jindal Tubular USA LLC, one of the largest manufacturers of large diameter steel pipe, 

invested $10 million in their plant expansion for a production line to manufacture mortarlined pipe for drinking water. Since beginning operations in August 2015, Jindal has 

increased employment at its Port Bienville Industrial Park plant from less than 50 to 200 

personnel. 

DAK Americas, which is one of the largest plastic-resin manufacturers in the U.S., has 

announced plans for a new manufacturing plant at their existing site at the industrial park. 

The plant would include $40 million of direct investment while adding 87 new full time 

jobs.

In December 2015, it was announced that the Port Bienville Industrial Park will receive 

$8 million in RESTORE Act funding (Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill) for the construction of a 

trans-load dock and ancillary infrastructure improvements including rail line expansion. 

The project will improve Port users’ ability to move product between modes of 

transportation and will increase Port throughput in support of industry onsite and offsite.

Each of these planned projects will place a greater demand on the study area 

transportation network. New and expanding manufacturing facilities will require 

additional employees and services, thus generating additional vehicular traffic and placing 

a greater demand on the existing roadway network.

2.1.2 Stennis International Airport

In December 2015, it was announced that the airport will receive $2 million in RESTORE 

Act funding (Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill) for Phase II of the Terminal Hangar project to 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

21 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

construct a new 24,000 square foot hangar. The new hangar will also accommodate 

maintenance, repair and overhaul operations (HCPHC 2015).

2.2 FUTURE RAIL NETWORK

2.2.1 Multimodal Corridors

Future conditions associated with the Tier I Corridors defined in the Mississippi Statewide 

Freight Plan were assessed using a comprehensive approach. The comprehensive approach 

considered a combination of all the intermodal facilities for assessing the corridor needs, as 

well as corridor infrastructure requirements. Each of the short-range and long-range 

recommended improvements to the Tier I Corridors would provide a benefit to the 

proposed Project. Key features associated with each of these multimodal Tier I Corridors 

include:

I-10/CSXT – Short-Range and Long-Range Recommended Improvements

• Upgrade all public at-grade crossings to full active crossing warning devices to 

improve safety (35 out of 72).

• Widen I-10 along the entire corridor to enhance reliability.

• Enhance rail access between CSXT and the Port of Gulfport to improve operational 

efficiency.

• Raise 7 of 48 bridges along I-59 to meet 16-foot vertical clearance requirement.

• Double track CSXT mainline to accommodate passenger rail.

I-59/NS – Short-Range and Long-Range Recommended Improvements

• Upgrade all public at-grade crossings to full active crossing warning devices to 

improve safety (7 out of 30).

• Construct track improvements along NS rail corridor in Picayune and Laurel to raise 

operating speed and enhance reliability. 

• Upgrade I-59 to improve safety—21 miles out of 171 miles along I-59 have high

crash segments. 

• Raise 1 of 9 bridges along I-10 to meet 16-foot vertical clearance requirement.

• Double track NS mainline to accommodate high-speed passenger rail.

2.3 FUTURE ROADWAY NETWORK

2.3.1 Study Area Roadway Network

Future improvements to study area roadways are included within MDOT’s 5-year 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The only project included within the TIP that 

is located within the study area is the proposed US 90 bridge replacement over the Pearl 

River near the Louisiana/Mississippi state line (Project 106663/301000). Initial funding in 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

22 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

the amount of $30 million has bee identified for the construction of this project, which is 

scheduled to begin in 2020 (MDOT 2016b).

2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT

2.4.1 Mainline Alignment

The proposed Project is identified as a near-term priority within the Mississippi State Rail 

Plan (MDOT 2011a). The proposed Project would provide a direct connection between Port 

Bienville and the NS rail line near I‐59, near Picayune/Nicholson. The proposed rail 

connection to the NS would also provide access to the Canadian National Railroad further 

north in Hattiesburg. Overall, the proposed Project would link to both the CSXT and NS 

main lines in Hancock County providing Port Bienville with the access to dual Class I rail 

service.

The proposed Project would repair and upgrade a 5.33 mile portion of the inactive NS rail 

line between US Highway 11 and Texas Flat Road. This segment of existing rail previously 

served SSC. The existing track within this segment consists of 136 pound (136#) 

continuously welded rail with wood ties. Within this segment of the overall rail corridor, a 

setout track is proposed within the existing NS right of way. A setout track is a short side 

track with access roads on both sides used to set out a defective car, allowing the rest of the 

train to proceed while the defective car remains behind to be repaired at a later time. They 

can also be used to store maintenance or inspection equipment for a short period of time.

South of Texas Flat Road, the proposed Project consists of new rail that would be 

constructed with a proposed 200-foot right of way. The new alignment segment is 

approximately 18.3 miles in length. Approximately 96,624 track feet of rail would be 

constructed as part of the Project. The proposed track would consist of 136 pound (136#) 

continuously welded rail with wood ties. Manual and electric turnouts would be installed. 

2.4.2 Proposed Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossings

As part of the conceptual engineering that was undertaken for the proposed rail alignment, 

proposed highway-rail grade crossings along the 23-mile rail corridor are depicted in 

Figure 1. Depending on highway functional classification and existing traffic volume, the 

proposed grade crossings consist of grade-separated crossings and at-grade crossings.

Table 9 summarizes the grade crossing locations along the Project alignment, which are 

further described below.

Grade-Separated Crossings

Four grade-separated crossings would occur along the entire project corridor. These 

locations include the existing rail bridge over I-59 in Nicolson and three new gradeseparated structures at I-10, SR 607 and US 90. For the new grade-separations, the rail 

would be elevated over the roadway with a bridge structure, and embankment sections 

would be constructed on each approach to the bridge. Bridge lengths would be determined 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

23 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

based on existing topography, existing cross street right of way and proposed vertical 

geometry. 

Public At-Grade Crossings

Thirteen public at-grade crossings would occur along the entire limits on project corridor. 

Six of the public at-grade crossings would be located on the north end of the corridor 

where the existing rail crosses US 11, Asa McQueen Road, Ridge Road, Texas Flat Road, and 

two unknown roads. Seven additional public at-grade crossings would occur at Flat Top 

Road, Mainline Road, Catahoula Road, Old Lower Bay Road, and three unknown roads.

In addition to the public at-grade crossings that are associated with the proposed Project, 

an existing highway-rail at-grade crossing occurs where the CSX Railroad crosses Lower 

Bay Road, just east of the entrance to Port Bienville. This grade crossing is proposed to be 

upgraded with flashing gates as described in the Mississippi State Rail Plan (MDOT 2011a).

Private At-Grade Crossings

Along the main line alignment from Texas Flat Road to US 90, there would be 

approximately nine private at-grade crossings. All of these crossings would occur at 

existing local access roadways, many of which are unpaved or unimproved asphalt 

roadways and do not have designated street names. These existing roadways provide 

access to undeveloped parcels of land owned by private landholders. In addition, several of 

the at-grade crossings are located within the SSC buffer zone.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

24 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 7: Proposed Grade Crossings along Project Alignment
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

25 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 9: Proposed Grade Crossings along Project Alignment

Roadway Crossing 

Location 

Alignment 

Centerline 

Station (1)

Crossing Type and Disposition

At-Grade GradeSeparated; 

Public Private Public Crossing

Proposed Rail on Existing Alignment within Existing NS Railroad Right-of-way 

US Highway 11 Sta 7+91 Existing

Interstate 59 Sta 38+30 Existing; Rail over

Asa McQueen Road Sta 84+93 Existing

Unknown Roadway Sta 128+80 Existing

Unknown Roadway Sta 155+29 Existing

Ridge Road Sta 199+45 Existing

Texas Flat Road Sta 229+74 Existing

Proposed Rail on New Alignment within Required Right-of-way 

Unknown Roadway Sta 256+02 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 297+17 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 311+33 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 339+74 Proposed

Flat Top Road Sta 378+79 Proposed

Mainline Road Sta 448+92 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 547+15 Proposed

Catahoula Road Sta 583+26 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 627+37 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 666+20 Proposed

Crown Road Sta 709+31 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 742+31 Proposed

Interstate 10 Sta 867+50 Proposed; Rail over

Utility Access Road Sta 906+50 Proposed

Unknown Roadway Sta 950+00 Proposed

SR Route 607 Sta 992+70 Proposed; Rail over

US Highway 90 Sta 1025+01 Proposed; Rail over

Unknown Roadway Sta 1122+26 Proposed

Old Lower Bay Road Sta 1175+76 Proposed

Total No. of Crossings by Type 13 9 4

Note 1: Station locations are based on conceptual rail alignment maps prepared by HDR.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

26 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Proposed Road Closures

Due to the close proximity of existing private roadways in relationship to the three 

proposed grade separations, a few adjacent private roadways would need to be closed to 

accommodate the embankment sections associated with the bridge approaches. Proposed 

private roads recommended for closure are depicted in Figure 7 and would occur at the 

following locations:

• one private road closure north of I-10, 

• two private road closures immediately north and south of SR 607; and

• one private road closure south of US 90. 

2.4.3 Proposed Traffic Control Measures at Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossings

In accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD), traffic control for grade crossings includes all signs, signals, 

markings, other warning devices, and their supports along highways approaching and at 

grade crossings. The function of this type of traffic control is to promote safety and provide 

effective operation of rail and highway traffic at grade crossings. Before any new highwayrail grade crossing traffic control system is installed, or before modifications are made to 

an existing system, approval shall be obtained from the highway agency with the 

jurisdictional and/or statutory authority, and from the railroad company (FHWA 2009). 

Highway-rail grade crossing traffic control measures would be implemented in accordance 

with the MUTCD standards as part of the Project. Recommended traffic control for 

highway-rail at-grade crossings would include, at a minimum, one grade crossing 

(crossbuck) sign on each highway approach to every highway-rail grade crossing, alone or 

in combination with other traffic control devices. The crossbuck sign is a warning to oncoming traffic of a highway-rail grade crossing and of a driver’s responsibility to yield to 

rail traffic if a train is approaching the crossings. In addition, a Grade Crossing Advance 

Warning sign shall be used on each highway in advance of every public highway-rail grade 

crossing (with exceptions). Several other advance warning signs can be used to alert 

drivers of highway-rail crossing conditions (Figure 8).
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

27 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 8: Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossing Signage

Recommended 

Signs

Grade Crossing sign

(R15-1) (Crossbuck)

Grade Crossing 

Advance Warning 

sign (W10-1)

Optional Traffic 

Control/Advance 

Warning Signs

Diagonal Crossing 

(W10-12)

Parallel Crossing 

(W10-3)

Stop Sign 

(if needed)

Yield Sign 

(if needed)

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways (FHWA 2009). 

In addition to MUTCD-compliant grade crossing signage, various on-street pavement 

markings are recommended for installation at public at-grade crossings. These markings 

would include stop lines, dynamic envelope pavement markings, and railroad pavement 

marking symbols. Figure 9 provides an example layout of safety devices for a public 

highway-rail grade crossing.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

28 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Figure 9: Highway-Rail Crossing Signage and On-street Pavement Marking Example

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways, Page 765 (FHWA 2009).

Table 10 summarizes the proposed traffic control measures that are recommended for 

installation at each of the 22 at-grade crossings. Advance warning signs, on-street 

pavement markings, signal gates and flashing lights are proposed at all public at-grade 

crossings. At the remaining private at-grade crossings, which would consist of very low 

volume roadways, crossbuck signs are recommended. On US 11, pedestrian crossing signs 

to accommodate Nicholson Elementary School students should be considered, if warranted.

Traffic control and signing and pavement marking plans which illustrate the proposed 

traffic measures for each of these locations would be developed as part of the Project 

design. Concurrence and approval from the highway agencies (MDOT, Hancock County and 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

29 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Pearl River County) with the jurisdictional and/or statutory authority for each roadway 

would be required.

Table 10: Proposed Traffic Control Measures at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

Roadway Crossing 

Location

Alignment 

Centerline 

Station (1)

Crossing Type

(Public/Private)

Proposed At-Grade Crossing 

Measures

US Highway 11 Sta 7+91 Public

Gates, flashers, pavement markings and 

grade crossing signs (crossbucks and 

grade-crossing advance railroad crossing) 

Asa McQueen Road Sta 84+93 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 128+80 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 155+29 Public

Ridge Road Sta 199+45 Public

Texas Flat Road Sta 229+74 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 256+02 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 297+17 Private

Unknown Roadway Sta 311+33 Private Crossbuck signs

Unknown Roadway Sta 339+74 Private

Flat Top Road Sta 378+79 Public

Gates, flashers, pavement markings and 

grade crossing signs (crossbucks and 

grade-crossing advance railroad crossing) 

Mainline Road Sta 448+92 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 547+15 Public

Catahoula Road Sta 583+26 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 627+37 Public

Unknown Roadway Sta 666+20 Private

Crossbuck signs

Crown Road Sta 709+31 Private

Unknown Roadway Sta 742+31 Private

Utility Access Road Sta 906+50 Private

Unknown Roadway Sta 950+00 Private

Unknown Roadway Sta 1122+26 Private

Old Lower Bay Road Sta 1175+76 Public

Gates, flashers, pavement markings and 

grade crossing signs (crossbucks and 

grade-crossing advance railroad crossing)

Note 1: Station locations are based on conceptual rail alignment maps prepared by HDR.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

30 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

2.5 TRAFFIC DELAY ANALYSIS

2.5.1 Traffic Delay Analysis Overview

Train crossings interrupt roadway traffic flow for a period of time at highway-rail at-grade 

crossings. Speed and length of the train are the primary factors that contribute to vehicular 

delay. A traffic delay analysis was undertaken to estimate the projected vehicular delay in 

2020 and 2040. Factors considered in the vehicle delay analysis include:

• The number of trains per day associated with the proposed Project,

• The estimated time it takes for a train to pass the highway-rail at-grade crossing; 

and

• Existing and projected roadway traffic volumes.

To characterize future conditions along the Project corridor, the analysis estimated future 

traffic delays due to the train movements at four public highway-rail at-grade crossings. 

The analysis focused on calculating delays to characterize the future effects on vehicular 

traffic from projected train movements. Vehicle delay calculations included the following 

measurements:

• Blocked crossing time per train, minutes (Dc)

• Average delay per delayed vehicle, minutes (Da)

• Vehicle queue length, number of vehicles (Q)

• Average delay for all vehicles, minutes (Dv)

• Total delayed vehicles per day (Td)

• Total vehicle delay for all vehicles in 24-hour period 

Table 11 briefly describes the parameters that were used to measure the grade crossing 

roadway and rail operational delay.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

31 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 11: Operational Parameters at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

Parameter Description

Blocked Crossing 

Time per Train 

(Dc)

The time required for a train to cross the intersecting roadway will be estimated. This time 

is called the blocked crossing time. This value is used to determine the length of time 

drivers wait when trains pass through a highway/rail at-grade crossing. Average train 

speed is a major factor in this calculation. This speed is dependent not only on track 

conditions and train operating characteristics, but also on intersecting commuter and 

freight rail traffic.

Average Delay 

per Delayed 

Vehicle (Da)

The average delay per delayed vehicle is the average amount of time that a driver would be 

delayed at a highway/rail at-grade crossing as a result of a single train crossing. It assumes

a uniform arrival of vehicles. Vehicles arrive at a constant rate. When the blocked crossing 

period begins, vehicles begin to queue. When the blocked crossing period ends, queued 

vehicles begin to depart at the constant vehicle departure rate. The departure rate 

continues until the departure curve intersects the arrival curve, signifying the dissipation 

of the queue.

Vehicle Queue 

Length (Q)

The vehicle queue is the estimated number of vehicles in line at the end of the blocked 

crossing time of a single train event. The vehicle queue is equal to the number of vehicles 

that arrive during the blocked crossing time (De). The vehicle queue during the peak hour 

of roadway traffic is estimated. The peak-hour traffic is assumed to be 10 percent of the 

ADT volume-a typical assumption used by traffic engineers, and consistent with MDOT 

count data. The vehicle queue at the end of the blocked crossing time is determined.

Average Delay 

for All Vehicles 

(Dv)

The average delay per vehicle is the average amount of time that a vehicle is delayed at that 

intersection.

Average Number 

of Vehicles 

Delayed Per Day 

(Td)

The average number of vehicles delayed per day equals the number of drivers in a 24-hour 

period that would be stopped for trains at highway-rail at-grade crossings. 

Traffic Level of 

Service (LOS)

The vehicle delay effects at highway-rail at-grade crossings uses the LOS concept at 

signalized intersections, as documented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (TRB 

2010). Use of the HCM procedures for signalized intersections is acceptable for the 

following reasons: the absence of a similar measure of efficiency for highway-rail at-grade 

crossings, and similarities between signalized intersection operation and highway-rail atgrade crossing operation.

Total Daily 

Average Vehicle 

Traffic Delay

The total average vehicle delay for each crossing over a 24-hour period multiplied by the 

number of vehicles delayed is used to estimate the total daily average vehicle traffic delay.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

32 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

2.5.2 Traffic Delay Analysis Methodology

The model used for calculation of delay at individual at-grade crossings provides a measure 

of delay based upon the time spent waiting for trains to clear individual crossings. This 

analysis provides output within the following general categories.

Maximum Queue Length. The queuing model supplied, based upon the Highway Capacity 

Manual (HCM) methodology measures the length of traffic queues created when trains 

crossing through at-grade intersections stop traffic flow. Measurement of the queue length 

is in the number of vehicles waiting in both directions at the given time the train crosses. As 

the train schedule limits the number and frequency of trains operating in the corridor, it 

also limits the likelihood of this queue developing during the peak of traffic. 

Total Delay. Delay measurements identify two conditions prevalent along the rail 

corridors:

• Aggregate Delay, defined as the total delay (in vehicle hours) incurred by all vehicles 

passing through the rail/road intersection.

• Average Delay, defined as the delay experience (in seconds per vehicle) for each 

peak hour experienced by vehicles passing through the rail/road intersection.

Level of Service. Level of Service (LOS) represents the evaluation of traffic operations, 

given a roadway subdivision, intersection or similar unit, combined with its general 

characteristics using procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000, 

developed by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (TRB 2000).

Procedures outlined in this manual can examine conditions along various types of 

roadways, given a variety of traffic operational conditions. 

In these analyses, the measure of performance, known as the level of service, appear as a

letter grade ranging from A to F. Thresholds and general descriptions for these measures, 

for both signalized and unsignalized intersections appear in Table 12. Analysis of level of 

service for roadways depends on the prevailing conditions of traffic operations found in the 

corridor, as characterized generally by the following factors:

• Traffic density or number of vehicles found on the corridor by lane;

• Prevailing speed of operation; and

• Ratio of volume to roadway capacity.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

33 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 12: Level of Service Criteria, Highway Capacity Manual

Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections

Level of Service Control Delay per Vehicle Level of 

Service

Control Delay per Vehicle 

(Sec)

A

B

C

D

E

F

≤ 10 seconds/vehicle

˃ 10-20 seconds/vehicle

˃ 20-35 seconds/vehicle

˃ 35-55 seconds/vehicle

˃ 55-80 seconds/vehicle

˃ 80 seconds/vehicle

A

B

C

D

E

F

≤ 10 seconds/vehicle

˃ 10-15 seconds/vehicle

˃ 15-25 seconds/vehicle

˃ 25-35 seconds/vehicle

˃ 35-50 seconds/vehicle

˃ 50 seconds/vehicle

Source: Exhibit 16.2, Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections; Exhibit 17.2, Level of Service Criteria 

Unsignalized Intersections; Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (TRB 2000).

Analyses which find LOS C or better conditions typically indicate that traffic movements 

occur close or at the posted speed limit, although some friction might be occurring as a 

result of vehicles entering from side streets, driveways or from lane changes to avoid 

congestion or turning vehicles. Typically, this level of operational environment, at-peak, 

occurs rarely, as this time period often reflects the period during which the maximum 

number of vehicles per hour can be found in the corridor. LOS D marks the point in traffic 

operations where the options to maneuver around slower moving vehicles, or vehicles 

entering/exiting the roadway is severely restricted. Traffic operations characterized by 

slower moving vehicles, including incidents of stopped vehicles or vehicles remaining 

platooned at signals through multiple cycles, reflect LOS E or LOS F conditions. LOS F 

represents that period during which the roadway is at, or over capacity, with a breakdown 

in traffic flow probable. Table 13 provides an overview of the LOS Criteria for rural streets, 

by classification. 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

34 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 13: Rural Street Level of Service Criteria, Highway Capacity Manual

Rural Class Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Range of Free Flow 

Speeds (FFS) 55 to 45 mph 45 to 35 mph 35 to 30 mph 35 to 25 mph

Typical FFS 50 mph 40 mph 35 mph 30 mph

LOS Average Travel Speed (mph)

A ˃ 42 ˃ 35 ˃ 30 ˃ 25

B ˃ 34-42 ˃ 28-35 ˃ 24-30 ˃ 19-25

C ˃ 27-34 ˃ 22-28 ˃ 18-24 ˃ 13-19

D ˃ 21-27 ˃ 17-22 ˃ 14-18 ˃ 9-13

E ˃ 16-21 ˃ 13-17 ˃ 10-14 ˃ 7-9

F ≤ 16 ≤ 13 ≤ 10 ≤ 7

Source: Exhibit 15.2, Rural Street Level of Service by Class; Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (TRB 2000).

2.5.3 Traffic Delay Analysis Locations

At-grade crossings along the proposed Project were analyzed for delay under future year 

conditions in 2020 and 2040. The analysis focused on public at-grade crossings that would 

most likely be impacted by the proposed Project. The overall transportation network and 

rural nature of the study area were also considered. Along the proposed rail alignment, 

three future highway-rail grade crossings were evaluated including US Highway 11, Texas 

Flat Road, and Flat Top Road. The existing at-grade crossing on Lower Bay Road at the Port 

entrance was also evaluated. The delay analysis on Lower Bay Road consisted of two 

scenarios: 1) with proposed Project rail traffic from the NS line only and 2) with proposed 

Project rail traffic from the NS line in combination with PBVR traffic on the existing spur 

that connects to CSXT. Due to the CSXT’s current common carrier obligation with Port 

Bienville, it is assumed that the existing and projected rail volumes for Port Bienville 

Industrial Park Tenants would continue to be served by CSXT. For purposes of the delay 

analysis, projected one-way rail volumes on the existing PBVR are estimated to be 22 cars 

in 2020, increasing to 33 cars by 2040.

2.5.4 Highway Data for Traffic Delay Analysis

In order to analyze future year traffic delay at proposed at-grade crossings, data was 

compiled from several sources. The delay analysis was conducted based on proposed 

values for the number of trains (N), average train speed (V), length of trains (L), number of 

traffic lanes (NL), and traffic count data. Traffic data for the delay analysis was provided by 

the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Gulf Regional Planning 

Commission. No additional traffic counts were obtained to supplement the existing data.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

35 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Average daily traffic (ADT) traffic count data by MDOT documents total volume found at 

key locations in the study area. Historical ADT for the study area (two-way traffic) provides

for changes in overall traffic. The purpose of this data, and the trend it provides, is to 

establish growth in traffic patterns as a means of creating a common baseline within 

stations of different years within the study area.

Each data point collected in the study area also came from a variety of count years. The 

analysis of future rail operations requires that all traffic volumes use a common year to 

establish a base for future operations. To define this base within a dataset containing 

points collected over a variety of years, the analysis used a trend line to document changes 

in traffic volume in the area. This trend is an annualized rate of change calculated following 

a review of data from several years for established count stations in the study area. 

Generally, the trend for changes in traffic found through this method was a 1 percent 

annual change. This rate of change allowed for its annualized growth between date of 

collection and the established baseline year (2020) and future year (2040). Table 14

provides a summary of the ADT data used in the analysis of future conditions for each 

location evaluated. This data demonstrates the low volume nature of the majority of roads 

which cross the proposed Project.

Table 14: Grade Crossing Projected Traffic Volume Data (2020 and 2040)

At-Grade Crossing 

Location 

Existing Volume 

(year)

2020 Estimated 

Volume (1)

2040 Estimated 

Volume (1)

US Highway 11 8,400 (2014) 8,917 10,880

Texas Flat Road 2,064 (2012) 2,235 2,727

Flat Top Road

110 (2011) - -

See Note 1 500 610

Lower Bay Road 1,876 (2012) 2,031 2,479

Note 1. The 2011 traffic count for Texas Flat Road is located to the north of Flat Top Road. The proposed at grade 

crossing is located on the south side of Flat Top Road where there is no traffic count data. Based on the existing roadway 

network, it is assumed that the volume of traffic on Flat Top Road, south of Texas Flat Road, would be higher due to the 

proximity of access to SSC. Therefore the 2020 volume on Texas Flat Road south of Flat Top Road is estimated at 500 

vehicles per day.

2.5.5 Rail Data for Traffic Delay Analysis

Estimates of existing and future rail car volumes were developed as part of the delay 

analysis. The PBVR is currently operating 6-day service with 2 trains per day (1 train 

inbound and 1 train outbound). Each train averages 22 cars per train each way. This daily 

average is based on the actual number of total cars serviced (49,013 cars) from January 

2013 to present. Annually, PBVR handles approximately 6,200 train cars. These existing 

trains access Port Bienville by way of the CSXT mainline near Ansley, Mississippi.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

36 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Based on previous interviews that were conducted with existing companies and 

information from the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA), future rail car usage on 

the Port Bienville Railroad could increase significantly given access to dual Class I railroads. 

The largest projected rail car user, Shale Support Services, is currently trucking fracking 

sands from Hancock County to its drying facility in Picayune. Additional product lines are 

planned for this facility in the near future if dual rail access is available, and the Phase II 

expansion would move 168,000 tons (1,680 rail cars) of material monthly (20,160 rail cars 

annually) from the Hancock County facility (MDOT 2013c).

Table 15 depicts the total projected volume of rail traffic with dual Class I rail service into 

Port Bienville.

Table 15: Projected Rail Car Volumes with Dual Class I Rail Service

Existing and Projected Rail User

Existing and/or 

Projected Annual Rail 

Car Volume 

Existing and/or 

Projected Daily Rail 

Car Volume (one-way 

only)

Existing Rail Car Volume for Existing Port 

Bienville Industrial Park Tenants (1) 6,200 rail cars 22 rail cars

Future Additional Rail Car Volume for Existing 

Port Bienville Industrial Park Tenants (2) 3,530 rail cars 11 rail cars (3)

Projected Rail Car Volumes for Phase II Shale 

Support Services Facility in Hancock County (2) 20,160 rail cars 65 rail cars (3)

Total Projected Rail Car Volumes for Existing 

Industries and MDA Industrial Prospect 29,890 rail cars 98 rail cars

Source 1: Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission, email correspondence dated June 2, 2016 and August 25, 2016.

Source 2: Port Bienville Rail Feasibility Study, CDM Smith, September 2013.

Source 3: Projected Daily Volume Based on 6-day Service Weekly per Year.

As part of the grade crossing analysis, projected rail car volumes were distributed among 

the Class I railroads as shown in Table 16. Due to the CSXT’s current common carrier 

obligation with Port Bienville, it is assumed that the existing and projected rail volumes for 

Port Bienville Industrial Park Tenants would continue to be served by CSXT. For purposes 

of the delay analysis, projected one-way rail volumes on the existing PBVR are estimated to 

be 22 cars in 2020, increasing to 33 cars by 2040.

The remainder of the projected rail traffic would utilize the proposed rail line. Based on the 

distribution of projected daily rail car volumes, it is estimated that the proposed rail line 

would move 65 rail cars (one-way only) on a daily basis by 2040. In the interim, the 

projected one-way rail volume on the proposed rail line is estimated to be 30 cars in 2020.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

37 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Table 16: Distribution of Projected Daily Rail Car Volumes by Class I Railroad (one-way only)

Existing and Projected Rail User

Total Projected 

Daily Rail Car 

Volumes (oneway only)

Projected Daily 

Rail Car 

Volumes -

Existing CSXT 

Projected Daily 

Rail Car 

Volumes -

NS/Proposed 

Project 

Full Build -

2040 2020 2040 2020 2040

Existing Rail Car Volume for Existing Port 

Bienville Industrial Park Tenants 22 rail cars 22 22 - -

Future Projected Additional Rail Car 

Volume for Existing Port Bienville 

Industrial Park Tenants

11 rail cars - 11 - -

Projected Rail Car Volumes for Phase II 

Shale Support Services Facility in Hancock 

County

65 rail cars - - 30 65

Total Projected Rail Car Volumes for 

Existing Industries and Future 

Industrial Prospects

136 rail cars 22 33 30 65

Train Lengths (L). The numbers of existing and projected cars per train is projected to 

vary from 22 to 65 cars. With each car having an average length of 60 feet including the 

coupling, plus an 80 foot locomotive, train lengths could range from 1,400 feet to 4,060 

feet. Trains over 50 cars would require two locomotives, which is accounted for within the 

65 car - 4,060 feet train set.

Train Speed (V). The average train operating speed provided by the PBVR Railway is 39 

miles per hour (mph). For the delay analysis, it was assumed that the average train speed 

for the proposed Project would be 30 mph at proposed public highway-rail grade crossings. 

At the Port entrance, a 20 mph speed was assumed for the train to cross Lower Bay Road.

2.5.6 Traffic Delay Analysis Results

As part of the proposed Project, the number of trains crossing Lower Bay Road 

immediately east of the Port entrance is anticipated to increase to 4 trains per day. This 

includes 2 trains per day (inbound and outbound) on the proposed rail line plus 2 trains 

per day (inbound and outbound) on the existing PBVR that connects to CSXT. 

Appendix A presents the results of the traffic delay analysis. Vehicle operations at each of 

the crossings evaluated are not projected to experience any level of delay in 2020 and 

2040, as indicated by the level of service A. Blockage of public at-grade intersections is not 

anticipated and motorist delay is not projected. Queue lengths are minimal, as is total 

vehicle delay. 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

38 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

CHAPTER 3. PROJECT COMMITMENTS

Rail Safety Public Awareness Program 

During construction and prior to operation of the proposed Project, a rail safety public 

awareness program should be implemented. Since rail service has not been in operation 

within the study area for over a decade, this type of program will benefit residents and 

motorists alike. 

The public awareness program should include efforts with community officials to identify 

elementary, middle, and high schools within the study area and provide, upon request, 

informational materials concerning railroad safety to such identified schools. Nicholson 

Elementary School located on US 11 near the northern-most at-grade crossing would 

benefit significantly from this type of safety program.

Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossings

The proposed Project would result in 13 public at-grade crossings and 9 private at-grade 

crossings. Traffic control measures are recommended for installation at each of the 22 atgrade crossings. Advance warning signs, on-street pavement markings, signal gates and 

flashing lights are proposed at all public at-grade crossings. At the remaining private atgrade crossings, grade crossing signs (crossbucks) are recommended. On US 11, pedestrian 

crossing signs to accommodate Nicholson Elementary School students should be 

considered, if warranted. Traffic control and signing and pavement marking plans which 

illustrate the proposed traffic measures for each of these locations would be developed as 

part of the Project design. Concurrence and approval from the highway agencies (MDOT, 

Hancock County, and Pearl River County) with the jurisdictional and/or statutory authority 

for each roadway would be required.

At each of the public at-grade crossings, permanent signs prominently displaying both a 

toll-free telephone number and a unique grade-crossing identification number in 

compliance with Federal Highway Regulations (23 CFR Part 655) should be installed. The 

toll-free number would enable drivers to report accidents, malfunctioning warning devices, 

stalled vehicles, or other dangerous conditions and would be answered 24 hours per day. 

Emergency Response 

Emergency service providers include police, fire departments, and emergency medical 

services. Vehicle responders could potentially be delayed if a train is present when 

emergency vehicles arrive at the crossing. The delay time would depend on the emergency 

vehicle arrival time relative to the train arrival time, as well as the length and speed of the 

train. Although trains have the potential to affect emergency access for police and fire 

vehicles, the communities within the study area maintain mutual aid agreements and other 

forms of intergovernmental agreements to contact each other in the event of a blocked at-
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

39 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

grade crossing. If an at-grade crossing is blocked by a train, alternate routes would be taken 

by emergency response vehicles.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

40 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

REFERENCES

Association of American Railroads (AAR). 2006. Recommended Railroad Operating Practices for 

Transportation of Hazardous Materials, Circular No. OT-55-I (CPC-1174, Supplement No. 1).

CSX. 2016a. “Company Overview.” https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/company-overview/

(accessed November 21, 2016).

CSX 2016b. “Hazardous Materials.” https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/safety/hazardousmaterials1/ (accessed November 22, 2016).

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2009. Overview, Highlights and Summary of the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (the Act). (Public Law No. 110-432, Division A, enacted Oct. 16, 2008, 

122 Stat. 4848-4906). Prepared March 10, 2009.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2010. 49 CFR Parts 213 and 237 Bridge Safety Standards; 

Final Rule. Federal Register. July 15, 2010.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2016a. “Railroad Safety.” 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0010 (accessed July 8, 2016).

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2016b. “Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Overview.” 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0156 (accessed July 8, 2016).

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2016c. “Positive Train Control (PTC) Legislation & 

Regulations.” https://www.fra.dot/Page/P0564 (accessed July 8, 2016).

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2016d. “Hazardous Materials Transportation.” 

https://www.fra.dot/Page/P0151 (accessed July 8, 2016).

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2016e. “Ten Year Accident/Incident Overview.” Office of 

Safety Analysis. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/

TenYearAccidentIncidentOverview.aspx (accessed November 18, 2016). Accident/Incident data 

current through the end of August 31, 2016.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD) for Streets and Highways. 2009 Edition. Updated in 2012. 

Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). 2015. Comprehensive Annual Financial 

Report For Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2015. Prepared by Finance Department, Janet E. 

Sacks, Chief Financial Officer. 

Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). 2016a. “Port Bienville Industrial Park.” 

http://portairspace.com/advantages/port_bienville_industrial_park (accessed November 21, 

2016).

Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). 2016b. “Stennis Airport, Port Bienville 

Receive MDOT Grants.” August 1, 2016. http://portairspace.com/news/article/stennis-airportport-bienville-receive-mdot-grants (accessed November 21, 2016).

Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission (HCPHC). 2016c. “Maps and Media.” 

http://portairspace.com/site_selection/maps (accessed November 21, 2016). 
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

41 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2011a. Mississippi State Rail Plan. June 2011.

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2011b. Mississippi’s Unified Long-Range 

Transportation Infrastructure Plan (MULTIPLAN 2035). Appendix E: Freight and Passenger Rail 

Investment Needs. May 2011.

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2013a. Multimodal Investment Report.

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2013b. Functional Classification System, 

Picayune Urban Area, Pearl River County, Mississippi. [map]. MDOT Transportation Planning 

Division in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway 

Administration.

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2013b. Port Bienville Rail Feasibility Study. 

Prepared by CDM Smith in association with HDR. September 19, 2013.

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2014a. Functional Classification System, 

Hancock County, Mississippi. [map]. MDOT Transportation Planning Division in Cooperation 

with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2014b. Mississippi Public Roads Selected 

Statistics Extent, Travel, and Designation. Prepared by the MDOT Transportation Planning 

Division in Cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway 

Administration. Information contained in the Planning Division’s files as of December 31, 2014.

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2014c. Mississippi Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan. January 2014.

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2015a. Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan Final 

Report. February 2015.

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2015b. Functional Classification System, Pearl 

River County, Mississippi. [map]. MDOT Transportation Planning Division in Cooperation with 

the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2016a. http://mdot.ms.gov/ports/

bienville.html (accessed November 21, 2016).

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2016b. http://mdot.ms.gov/applications/

five_year_plan/Views/Details.aspx?Proj=106663/301000 (accessed August 19, 2016).

Norfolk Southern (NS). 2016. “Our Network” http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/

shipping-options/intermodal/why-norfolk-southern-intermodal/our-network.html (accessed 

November 21, 2016).

Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI). 2016. “About Operation Lifesaver.” https://oli.org/rail-safety

(accessed August 19, 2016).

Southern Rail Commission. 2016. “Gulf Coast Train Tour – Recap.” 

http://www.southernrailcommission.org/rail-story (accessed November 21, 2016).

Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2000. HCM2000 Highway Capacity Manual. National 

Academies of Sciences.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

42 Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2010. HCM2010 Highway Capacity Manual. National 

Academies of Sciences.
Draft Transportation and Safety Report

Project No. FRA-0023-00(003)/105494 101000-102000

APPENDIX A — AT-GRADE CROSSING DELAY ANALYSIS RESULTS
APPENDIX A

At‐Grade Crossing Delay Analysis ‐ 2020

Table 1 Calculation of Future Crossing Delay, All Locations (2020 Build; 1,880 foot train sets)

2015 2014

LO

City County Street

Distance 

Between 

Crossings 

(miles)

Crossing

Type Year Source 2020 ADT Estimated 2020 ADT Rounded L V DC Da N TD NL Q DV Proje

(20

Nicholson Pearl River US Highway 11 0.0 at-grade 2020 MDOT Count + 1% growth rate 8,917 9000 1,880 30 1.2 0.79 2 15 2 11 0.003 A 

Not Applicable Hancock Texas Flat Road 4.20 at-grade 2020 MDOT Count + 1% growth rate 2,235 2300 1,880 30 1.2 0.79 2 4 2 3 0.003 A Not Applicable Hancock Flat Top Road 3.40 at-grade 2020 MDOT Count + 1% growth rate 500 500 1,880 30 1.2 0.79 2 1 2 1 0.003 A 

Port Entrance Hancock Lower Bay Road 17.0 at-grade 2020 MDOT Count + 1% growth rate 2,031 2100 1,880 20 1.6 1.02 2 5 2 3 0.004 A Port Entrance Hancock Lower Bay Road * 17.0 at-grade 2020 MDOT Count + 1% growth rate 2,031 2100 1,880 20 1.6 1.02 4 9 2 3 0.009 A 

* 4 trains per day 

Input Values Da =0.5*Dc*1.3 Q =ADT*0.1*(0.6/60)*Dc/(NL/2)

Output Values =Average delay per delayed vehicle, minutes =Vehicle queue (number of vehicles)

NL =Number of traffic lanes

Dc =(L/(Vx88))+0.50 TD =(Dc/1440)*N*ADT

=Time required for train to pass, minutes =Number of vehicles delayed per day DV =Td*Da*2/ADT

L L =Length of train, feet (average) =Ave delay for all vehicles, min per vehicle

V V =Train speed, mph (from schedule or observation) 1440 =Minutes per day

88 (x88)=Conversion Factor from mph to fpm N =Number of trains per day D =Dc*N/ADT

0.5 (+0.50) =Time in minutes for gate closing and opening Ave delay for each vehicle

Notes:

1.) Train speed, mph (V) and number of trains per day (N) based upon data provided by PBVR and Hancock County.

Vehicle traffic data obtained from MDOT.

Template developed by HDR Engineering, Inc.

BUILD CONDITION (2020)

Variable Definitions
APPENDIX A

At‐Grade Crossing Delay Analysis ‐ 2040

Table 2 Calculation of Future Crossing Delay, All Locations (2040 Build; 4,060 foot train sets)

2015 2014

LO

City County Street

Distance 

Between 

Crossings 

(miles)

Crossing

Type Year Source 2040 ADT Estimated 2040 ADT Rounded L V DC Da N TD NL Q DV Proj

(20

Nicholson Pearl River US Highway 11 0.0 at-grade 2040 MDOT Count + 1% growth rate 10,880 10,900 4,060 30 2.0 1.32 2 31 2 22 0.007 

Not Applicable Hancock Texas Flat Road 4.20 at-grade 2040 MDOT Count + 1% growth rate 2,727 2,800 4,060 30 2.0 1.32 2 8 2 6 0.007 

Not Applicable Hancock Flat Top Road 3.40 at-grade 2040 MDOT Count + 1% growth rate 610 700 4,060 30 2.0 1.32 2 2 2 1 0.007 

Port Entrance Hancock Lower Bay Road 17.0 at-grade 2040 MDOT Count + 1% growth rate 2,479 2,500 4,060 20 2.8 1.82 2 10 2 7 0.014 

Port Entrance Hancock Lower Bay Road * 17.0 at-grade 2040 MDOT Count + 1% growth rate 2,479 2,500 4,060 20 2.8 1.82 4 19 2 7 0.028 

* 4 trains per day 

Input Values Da =0.5*Dc*1.3 Q =ADT*0.1*(0.6/60)*Dc/(NL/2)

Output Values =Average delay per delayed vehicle, minutes =Vehicle queue (number of vehicles)

NL =Number of traffic lanes

Dc =(L/(Vx88))+0.50 TD =(Dc/1440)*N*ADT

=Time required for train to pass, minutes =Number of vehicles delayed per day DV =Td*Da*2/ADT

L L =Length of train, feet (average) =Ave delay for all vehicles, min per vehicle

V V =Train speed, mph (from schedule or observation) 1440 =Minutes per day

88 (x88)=Conversion Factor from mph to fpm N =Number of trains per day D =Dc*N/ADT

0.5 (+0.50) =Time in minutes for gate closing and opening Ave delay for each vehicle

Notes:

1.) Train speed, mph (V) and number of trains per day (N) based upon data provided by PBVR and Hancock County.

Vehicle traffic data obtained from MDOT.

Template developed by HDR Engineering, Inc.

BUILD CONDITION (2040)

Variable Definitions